Wadhams v. Vanderworken

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Wadhams v. Vanderworken

1 Root 385

DecidedJanuary 15, 1792

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Root 385 (Wadhams v. Vanderworken) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wadhams v. Vanderworken, 1 Root 385 (Colo. 1792).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

A blank indorsement upon the back of a note of the promisee’s name, cannot operate as an assignment of any other note than that on the back of which it is written, although there be other notes writen upon the same piece of paper; and that a blank indorsement at most, only gives the indorsee authority to write over it a power to collect it, and an assignment of the property with a warranty that the money is due. As to whether the County Court erred in not admitting parol testimony for the purpose mentioned in the bill of exceptions, tins court made no determination.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Court.

A blank indorsement upon the back of a note of the promisee’s name, cannot operate as an assignment of any other note than that on the back of which it is written, although there be other notes writen upon the same piece of paper; and that a blank indorsement at most, only gives the indorsee authority to write over it a power to collect it, and an assignment of the property with a warranty that the money is due. As to whether the County Court erred in not admitting parol testimony for the purpose mentioned in the bill of exceptions, tins court made no determination.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Root 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wadhams-v-vanderworken-conn-1792.